User talk:Asmodeus

Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe

With regards to your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks.

Much as I hate making this sort of thing official, your comments about myself, Byrgenwulf and Jeffire on the above-mentioned AfD have, in my opinion, crossed the line. WP:NPA refers. Tevildo 01:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Pardon me, but I just noticed your message.

Byrgenwulf has been making unsupported, unverifiable attacks on the topic of this article. Indeed, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy regarding neutrality and verifiability, both of you have been attacking the content, or topic, of the article rather than the article itself. All that the article has to do is faithfully report what appeared in the press and was written by Langan; given the clear notability of the content, you have no right whatsoever to carp and complain about it, at least in the capacity of Wikipedia editors acting in good faith. All you can do is report what other sufficiently notable people have said about the theory in sufficiently reputable and verifiable sources. If you choose to carp and complain anyway, particularly in a way that influences how the article is edited - after all, voting for deletion amounts to attempting to edit the article, right out of existence in fact, and likewise for encouraging others to vote as you do - then you are yourself in contempt of Wikipedia policy, and it is hypocritical of you to complain when you get the worst of it.

Instead of supporting his (and your) claims, as is your editorial responsibility, Byrgenwulf ignored his responsibility and attempted to infuse his attacks with authority by claiming to be a professional philosopher of physics. He did this both voluntarily and dishonestly, and that is now a proven fact. Once you have been shown to be something, that's it - anybody can point it out, as many times as he or she likes. If Byrgenwulf has been shown to be dishonest, or not an expert as he claims to be, anyone is free to state as much whenever convenient. Wikipedia policy is not just something that people like Byrgenwulf, and you, and jeffire, can point to when you don't like the way things are going for you, but then ignore whenever you can get away with it. It is something that applies to you as well.

Incidentally, although you may think that I find your supercilious comments about philosophy impressive, this is anything but the case. Quite the opposite, in fact. I am quite certain, on the basis of your snide and shallow comments, that your level of philosophical understanding is nothing to respect. In fact, it may even be as deficient as Byrgenwulf's own. Please bear this in mind as you attempt to do the Wikipedia community, and the world at large, a monumental disservice by attacking a valuable, informative, and well-referenced article on a notable topic just to strike a blow for your own inability to comprehend it while meanwhile advancing your own opinions. Truly, this is a black mark on your record. Asmodeus 03:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Warning 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks, this is a blockable offense, see WP:NPA. And especially stop using th edit summary to make personal attacks. --Pjacobi 19:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Response As you are very well aware, you were not attacked on personal grounds. It was merely pointed out to you and others that you are in violation of Wikipedia policy. You have failed to verify or in any way substantiate your biased remarks, which you are nevertheless using as grounds to recommend deletion of the article. Again, this is reprehensible, and that's a fact. Of course, I'm very sorry if your feelings were hurt in any way. My best advice to you would be to carefully review Wikipedia policy, and be sure to meet your editorial obligations in the future. Asmodeus 20:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you were remembering your edits better. This one is the most blatant violation of WP:NPA

• [1]

Pjacobi 20:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory.

pjacobi: Delete - one person's theory, not in any way in contact with academic reserach. --Pjacobi 13:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

My response: Who cares how many people wrote it, or whether it is "in contact with academic reserach"? If you want to read about things that are "in contact with academic reserach", you should subscribe to academic journals. Wikipedia is not an appendage of academia, and the CTMU nowhere relies on "contact with academic reserach" to make its points. Please, let's keep our eyes on the ball here. Asmodeus 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now please read carefully.

1. Most theories are written by one person; others are free to utilize them (or not) in their own work later on down the line, as they choose. That others have not yet chosen to do so need not reflect on the theory or its applicability to important issues, particularly given the polarization associated with the central focus of the scholastic journal in which the CTMU was published. This is not necessarily a reflection on the theory; it is more likely pertinent to the philosophical assumptions under which others are working, which - inasmuch as we are, after all, talking about philosophy - may ultimately lead nowhere. Indeed, it may merely mean that other scholars are unfamiliar with the theory because they only pay attention to a narrow or professionally closed set of sources. You have improperly recommended this article for deletion on those grounds, and that was wrong of you as a Wikipedia editor.

This leads us to

2. It makes no difference whether a theory is "notable to academic researchers" (whether or not this is the case). It has been patiently explained to you that academics are not the ones who make this particular theory notable; it is notable because it was covered by highly reputable sources in the popular media, and because it has a remarkable structure that no other theory possesses. Again, citing the superficially apparent inattention of academia as grounds for deletion was irresponsible of you as a Wikipedia editor.

You have voted to delete an informative, well-verified article about a notable topic on irrelevant or nebulous grounds for which you have no verification. In so doing, you have let Wikipedia and its readership down. Please be more responsible about your editing activities in the future. Asmodeus 21:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not about my vote but about you attacking another editor. --Pjacobi 21:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Again? [2] --Pjacobi 22:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You evidently failed to read the comments to which I was responding. Perhaps you also missed the bursts of fraud and disinformation emanating from Byrgenwulf at al. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't...I don't really care one way or the other. But in any case, please go away. Asmodeus 22:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Others also violating policy is no excuse. If you want to to report specific incidents, please give me or another admin a diff to the incident. You can also use Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. oh, you were already reported there, I see. Anyway, regarding abuse in edit comments, your contributions clearly stand out [3]. --Pjacobi 23:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah...so you're an administrator (maybe). Pardon me, then - you were apparently only trying to do your job.

I was thrown off by the fact that you voted, non-neutrally and without verification for your editorial remarks. Surely an administrator doesn't want to be caught violating Wikipedia policy? I guess I'm a bit confused.

But may I ask you a question? Have you cited anyone else for incivility? A simple yes or no would do - I'm not interested in whom else you cited. I'd just like to ascertain that you're being balanced in your assessments, that's all. You've got a very bad show going on here, a regular grabastic kangaroo court, and in no way am I the cause of it.

But I think you probably knew that already, didn't you.

Anyway, thanks in advance for your forthcoming assurance of administrative symmetry (or maybe not...). Asmodeus 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As you have guessed, I've warned nobody else. It was the attack in your edit summary that caught my eye. I checked whether the posting you were responding to was an attack and judged it not be. My actions as admin are unrelated to my actions as editor (like contributing to AfD -- it's not a vote actually). For this reason I'll most likely (read: if no immediate response is required) I have to involve another admin for deciding to actually block you. --Pjacobi 00:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive Incivility

These remarks, [4] [5] [6] [7] violate Wikipedia policies on personal attacks and civility. This kind of language becomes disruptive very quickly. Please don't do this any more, or it may be neccessary to temporarily suspend your editing privileges. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

The incivil hostility of these remarks is disruptive.[8][9] I'm blocking you for twenty-four hours. When you come back, please take more care with your words. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You're making a personal judgment call, and it's a bad one. In at least two of those comments, I was being positively moderate. In no case was anyone personally attacked, called names, or treated in any way that wouldn't have flown on any other site but this one. You're protecting miscreants, probably out of personal bias, and In my humble opinion, you're totally out of line. Just thought I'd let you know. Asmodeus 05:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mega Society Article up for Deletion

As you have edited the article on the Mega Society, I wish to inform you it is up for deletion. I saw that you are active in the debate over the deletion of the CTMU article. Although I am not completely certain, I am suspicious that Byrgenwulf and Jefffire have put the Mega Society article up for deletion because of its (now tenuous) link with Christopher Langan and the CTMU. I mean no disrespect, but, especially since you have gotten into trouble with admins in the past, please be circumspect in your posts in both debates. It does not help our argument to even appear to be making personal attacks. —Tox 09:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between making personal attacks and correcting disinformation. The worst of which I can be accused is attempting to correct disinformation, sometimes a bit impatiently. (On the other hand, when editors of the CTMU article were falsely and maliciously accused of forging source material - that is, personally attacked, and repeatedly - nobody said a word, and no moderator lifted a finger. Clearly, something's not right there.) Regarding the Mega Society, I'm afraid you're on your own. I'm not interested in it or its Wikipedia article. If it is associated with Langan or the CTMU, that may well be a shame...but if the truth be told, probably more so for Langan and the CTMU than the Mega Society itself. (If there's anything else I can help you with, just let me know.) Asmodeus 13:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your efforts to save CTMU. No one can say we didn't try. You might want to add your opinion to the deletion review. Thanks again. Tim Smith 21:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

IRL

You seem to be a big fan of this CTMU thingie. I have to ask: are you by any chance Christopher Michael Langan IRL?

If so, as a matter of common courtesy, I think you need to disclose this on the talk page when you edit articles like Christopher Michael Langan or Mega Foundation. If challenged, this would help you make a case that your edits are in good faith. Wikipedia currently has a huge problem with vanity cruft, so many users are apt to become concerned when they see edits which suggest a possible undisclosed personal interest in slanting a WP article in some direction.---CH 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Response Thank you for your concern. However, from where I sit, it isn't my "good faith" that is at issue here. It's the good faith of the AfD initiator and his fellow instigators that is at issue. After all, I didn't write the CTMU article. Tim Smith did, and I don't know Mr. Smith from Adam.

Suffice it to say that I consider myself to be somewhat knowledgable regarding the topic of that article, and rather than let Wikipedia readers be deceived, disinformed, and otherwise steered wrong about it, feel a responsibility to edit any part of it which I know to be erroneous or malicious in nature. All of my edits to date have satisfied this criterion.

In addition, you should know that even if I wanted to introduce myself to you - and as it happens, I feel no such desire - I certainly wouldn't do so in any way that might advantage people whom I consider to be hostile, untrustworthy, or despicable, no matter how hard and hypocritically they try to blend into the Wikipedia community. Needless to say, that includes some of those involved in this AfD.

If there's anything else I can help you with, just let me know. If I don't find your request too arrogant, invasive, or adversarial, I may consider it. Now have a nice evening. Asmodeus 05:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

DRV

Hi,

I am going to assume that you were merely very confused. When an admin closes a log, one does not reopen it to add additional comments. Refer to the recently concluded section of the main DRV page for the result: in the case of CTMU, that result is "Deletion endorsed".

Repeated reversion of administrative closures would be grounds for a block; I'm sure your action today was a simple accident, though. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hillman/Dig

Hi, Asmodeus, you will probably be interested in this MfD. ---CH 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

I notice that you've edited a few philosophy articles. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about philosophy in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on philosophical topics. DrL 21:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Another bout of personal attacks

You obviously already know about Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks and incivility, since you've been blocked for this kind of behaviour before. These edits ([10],[11]), among many others, I regard as being unduly offensive, not to mention completely off-topic. Please stop this disruptive behaviour now. Thanks. Byrgenwulf 22:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just stop harassing Asmodeus, Byrgenwulf? He is not attacking you. I think you have things backwards. DrL 23:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Advocacy

Would you consider accepting me as your advocate for the case? This would allow us to present a consistent, coherent argument, rather than two separate arguments. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Response Of course I'd consider it. I would, however, ask that you make very sure that you have enough spare time to actually pursue the case. I'd also ask you to understand that User Hillman's behavior has flipped over a rotten log here at Wikipedia, and that I have no intention of either ignoring what is underneath it or allowing Hillman to extract concessions of any kind without making important concessions of its own.

I don't know whether you're familiar with the full history of this dispute. But to make a long story short, an utter mockery was made of Wikipedia and its guidelines by a certain militant faction as it engaged in a vicious but comically misguided attempt to sabotage and/or delete a handful of articles related to a certain notable person and his equally notable ideas. This group was led by two people, User Hillman and an intellectually incompetent, ethically unconstrained newbie. As I see it, User Hillman, probably being old enough to know better and having a bit more upstairs, bears most of the responsibility.

This attempt, which involved various glaring abuses of Wikipedia policy, childish errors of classification, and lopsided, blame-the-victims administrative intervention (see above), was all the more comical for its bizarre success. However, I'm not laughing, because it wasted a lot of my time. Thus, I don't think that User Hillman should skate away clean. At the very least, they/he/she/it must agree to stay away from DrL and me, period, and agree not to mount any more soapboxes or mindlessly incite any more mob action against us or our editorial activities (which are, after all, well in accord with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and probably well over Hillman's head as well).

Needless to say, the removal of all personal material regarding DrL and me is absolutely non-negotiable. All that is open for negotiation are the conditions under which this will occur. If these stipulations are agreeable to you, let me know...and in any event, thanks. Asmodeus 19:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that we probably do have a reasonable case for the removal of all the personal info, so yes, those seem reasonable at the moment. It seems like Hillman is prepared to negotiate in good faith to try to find an amicable solution to this problem without resorting to formal dispute resolution, which is always good news. I would ask that you allow me to conduct the negotiations on your behalf for the moment, as it is possible that due to your disagreements in the past, Hillman may be less likely to accept proposals which come directly from you. --David Mestel^(Talk) 20:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Hello, David. I note that on Hillman's Talk page, somebody has remarked that early in the discussion, I mentioned a couple of details regarding the personal identity of Byrgenwulf. The reason: in attempting to lend weight to his attack on the CTMU article, Byrgenwulf had claimed to "work professionally in the field (of the philosophy of physics)".

Inasmuch as Byrgenwulf thereby invited others to perceive him as a professional philosopher of physics, and his attack on the CTMU as a "professional" judgment by a qualified authority, I needed to set the record straight. There was only one way to do this: to make note of the truth - that Byrgenwulf is merely a college student - and give the means of verification (an Internet search on "Byrgenwulf"). At the time, I was unfamiliar with some of the rules of the site; I was only aware that Byrgenwulf was being dishonest in a way calculated to sway the issue, and that somebody needed to do something about it. Indeed, since there seems to be no other way to refute false claims of expertise or professional status on the parts of personally or ideologically motivated vandals, this amounts to a "hole" in Wikipedia policy...a hole through which Byrgenwulf himself compelled me to step.

Also, I see that KSmrq has inserted his(?) personal bloviations regarding the Hillman Affair on Hillman's Talk page. I have requested (on KSmrq's own Talk page) that he stay out of the discussion. It might help if at some point, you were to point out that declarations of partiality, shows of solidarity, slant-edited conversations, and outright counterfactual nonsense are irrelevant to the negotiations and should be posted elsewhere. This will obviate any need for a personal response from me on Hillman's Talk page. Thanks, Asmodeus 16:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a good way to resolve that kind of problem. Wikipedia is not built on the contributions of experts on the sole authority of their expertise, but rather on the basis of verifiable information from reliable sources, especially non-primary sources. However, you are to cease disparaging your fellow editors. Those are personal attacks, and are a form of incivility, for which you may be blocked if you continue. This behavior from you is not in the past: just yesterday, you called an editor an "intellectually incompetent, ethically unconstrained newbie." That's just plain unacceptable. Steer your discussions towards content and policy, not towards the contributors. Mangojuice^talk 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response Pardon me, Mangojuice, but with all due respect, that is not a viable solution to the problem I cited. There are no verifiable sources on users like Byrgenwulf, who attacked a Wikipedia article without any verifiable sources of his own, but nevertheless prevailed because he knowingly misrepresented the topic of that article and actively solicited votes on that basis. These are clear violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines about which a couple of your fellow administrators did precisely nothing, and at this point, they are all a matter of record...although some of those records may no longer exist on this site (as opposed to my desktop), precisely because the attack succeeded (despite the fact that a large number of verifiable, big-name, large-circulation secondary sources - e.g., ABC, the BBC, and Popular Science - were duly presented by those trying to defend the article).

If I may be so bold: would it hurt to try to do your job in a more neutral way, without appearing to take the sides of people who have spectacularly violated the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia and thereby damaged both it and its content? And instead of threatening those with whom you converse, wouldn't it be better to calmly give them your informed, impartial advice? That way, they will be more likely to take your advice in the helpful, constructive spirit which you no doubt intend. I understand that you are an administrator, but in all honesty, I can't help but find your imperious tone a bit offputting. (Also: since I refrained from identifying the "intellectually incompetent, ethically unconstrained newbie" by name, are you quite sure that this constitutes a violation of civility guidelines? After all, I could have been referring to practically anyone.)

That being said, thank you very much for your advice (which I do appreciate and will try to follow), and have a nice day. Asmodeus 18:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I had not looked into your situation fully enough. Now I have. I stand by my warning. I'm familiar with pseudoscience-slander issues (see Eric Lerner and its talk page) and I'm sympathetic to the situation. You have had a rough time on Wikipedia, I can tell. However, that doesn't excuse rude behavior. To respond to some specific points, I do think that referring back to WP policy can help in an editing dispute, like yours with Byrgenwulf was initially, but once it escalated to an AfD, things become much dicier, so perhaps my advice wouldn't have done much good. I'd like to note that I feel a block of you would be totally justified at this point, but your attacks have been subtle and you haven't been warned about them much, so I felt it would be better to warn you. Ok, look, here's the problem. Civility is a central policy of Wikipedia. Your disparaging comments have been subtle, sarcastic, and witty, but still directly insulting to other users. It's clear you're involved in a conflict here, but name-calling is absolutely unhelpful: it doesn't resolve anything, and it just draws those you're in conflict with back into the fight. Let's take your user page, for instance. Some of what you write there is perfectly understandable and a reasonable way to describe a disagreement you have with the philosophy and behavior of some users. If they read it, they might start to understand where you're coming from. But then, you call them apes, and you link "APE" to a wide variety of monkey articles, just to make it crystal clear that the acronym isn't a mistake. What you are doing is called trolling. You have legitimate points in all of your disputes, but stick to your legitimate points and stop trying to insult everyone you don't like. Do not pretend that you have been civil enough to meet this policy: you really haven't. Some of your comments may not quite be personal attacks, but your incivility cannot be questioned. For instance: you asked whether not identifying the user you were saying was "intellectually incompetent" meant you weren't violating the guidelines. Yes, you absolutely were. You might not have made a direct personal attack, but you were being directly disparaging, and hence, your behavior was inappropriate. As a matter of fact, your behavior was way over the line. Shape up, or you'll be blocked. Mangojuice^talk 21:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Points well taken, Mangojuice...although I rather suspect that you may not have understood a couple of the points that I was trying to make. For example, we have the "shape up" turn of speech, which again is a bit off-putting. But in the interests of civility, and because you're being so...understanding...I'll move on.

As an example of what I'm up against here, let's have a look at Byrgenwulf's last post on this page. Now, you just read me the riot act, right? I've been a bit too witty and a bit too subtle, and you're not having any more of it. But if I'm not mistaken, Byrgenwulf's last post meets your stated criteria for incivility in spades. Look at it closely. Take an especially close look at phrasing like "or (you) are unable to grasp the meaning of the very simple English words I used" ... "your own misplaced pompousness and undeserved arrogance" ... "you're bitter that I am not taken in by Langan's little theory, and that I brought it to the attention of other people who found it similarly ridiculous" (don't forget that Byrgenwulf has accused me of being Langan, and probably believes that accusation) ... "the Wikipedia community does not wish to be the blog of every crackpot with a piece of metatwaddle they wish to inflict upon the world" ... "the tawdry and lurid nature of the rags in which it was printed" ... "your puerile invective and cheap sarcasm", and so on ad nauseam.

Now, here's my problem: this sort of wording is absolutely characteristic of Byrgenwulf's style. And yet, Byrgenwulf has not been warned about his own glaring and unregenerate incivility...not even once. Similarly, Byrgenwulf was caught red-handed misrepresenting the topic of a Wikipedia article and soliciting AfD and DR votes on that basis, twice in close succession; yet, in violation of proper procedure here at Wikipedia, the closing administrators allowed him to carry the day (twice).

You sound like a fairly intelligent person, Mangojuice. So perhaps you understand how very unlikely this is to be accidental. Indeed, at this point, it really can't be chalked up to accident; you might as well take a quarter out of your pocket and try to flip twenty tails in a row. It definitely, without a doubt, speaks to the particular kind of adminstrator who has taken an interest in the CTMU case and its various sequelae, and unless I'm badly mistaken, it says nothing particularly complimentary about the overall fairness and neutrality of administrative processes here at Wikipedia.

This is honestly the way I see it. If you disagree, then may I hear why? On the other hand, if you agree, then what should I do about it? Should I open official complaints against those administrators who have warned and/or blocked me on minor provocation while letting others get away with murder, comparatively speaking? How, exactly, should I do that? I'm not trying to be difficult here - I'm just asking for your fair, neutral, well-considered advice as a trusted Wikipedia administrator. Thanks, Asmodeus 22:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand you feeling frustrated about the AfD and DRV. I can say, though, that too much attention from the article's supporters seems to have damaged both those debates. I've seen it happen before: editors that support the article but aren't super-clear on Wikipedia policy can end up going on long rants and extended discussions with other users over ground that could be covered pretty simply, but then the length of the debate, and the fact that a small group of users is being especially vocal, draws negative attention to their side of the debate. As to what to do about it, my main piece of advice is to let it be for a while; there's a hot conflict here and it needs to cool off before things can progress. In the meantime, read the policies and guidelines over as much as you can, and look through deletion debates on other articles to get a sense for how those policies are applied. Then, when the time is right, start a deletion review with the aim of writing a new article, and keep a level head and base your arguments on policy, and be civil (it really helps: a lot of people will feel they can't take the side of someone they don't like.) Accept that the outcome you want may not come about, if that is the will of the community (the debate will better reflect the will of the community if it doesn't get heated.) As for users you have a dispute with, we have several forms of dispute resolution, including for interactions with admins. Mangojuice^talk 05:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Thank you for your well-considered response.

As I see it, the problem with another Deletion Review is that the original jury was artificially selected in a skewed manner, and is sufficiently militant that it is likely to swarm any further review with similar ill intent (while it's true that the supporters of the CTMU article were rather vocal, bear in mind that they were also outnumbered 10 to 1 by people with negative attitudes toward the article). The only way to properly hold another such review would be to exclude the members of WikiProject Pseudoscience, to whom the article and its topic were originally misrepresented, and - dare I say it? - none of whom appear, to me at least, to understand or respect the logical and disciplinary distinctions between levels of discourse bearing on the nature of reality.

Unfortunately, I see no clear way to effect such an exclusion. It therefore seems to me that the only way for the article to be treated fairly would be to reverse the original AfD/DR on grounds of misrepresentation and solicitation, which clearly did occur. In a political system where clear violations of the rules are grounds to overturn any decision at any point, this would probably be much easier to accomplish. But here at Wikipedia, mob action has a kind of sanctity, a more privileged status than any mere set of rules, and irreversible miscarriages of justice must inevitably occur. Such injustices will ultimately result - indeed, have probably already resulted - in a significant loss of encyclopedic integrity.

In short, while the Wikipedia system is good in some ways, it is bad, some might say execrable, in others. The Will of the Mob can become written in stone, a permanent testament to vindictiveness and irrationality. Try as I might, I really don't see how to paint a smileyface on this. Wikipedia will either have to change, or it will have to suffer. Meanwhile, if you have any further suggestions, please don't hesitate to share them - they would certainly be appreciated. Thanks again, Asmodeus 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, Asmodeus, I am somewhat of a "qualified authority" (as you put it, although I am not actually so pompous as to term myself an "authority"), and am more qualified than Langan, should you wish to make a fuss of that; I am also a member of a professional society (a real professional society, not a "let's pretend" club like the ISCID), which can be established by anyone with access to their membership directory. Not that it matters for these purposes, but since my own competence to comment has been questioned, I see fit to address it.

So there was no dishonesty or falsehood in what I said. And nor have I said anything which evinces "technical incompetence" or downright ignorance about the milieu in which the CTMU allegedly resides. Simply because I have refused to indulge in facile arguments about the theory here, thus leaving unanswered your floundering attempts at defending it in the AfD etc., does not mean that I do not see through it. On the contrary: some things are just so plain wrong it is a waste of time to try to explain them to an unwilling and embarassingly arrogant pupil from first principles.

I also object to the oblique intimation that I am a "vandal", in your comment above. And many others, which have gone unremarked, because I hate being petty and refuse to sink to your level of behaviour.

Stop your massive campaign to assassinate my character. Now. Byrgenwulf 17:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Byrgenwulf. First, please try to refrain from giving orders - that isn't your place around here. Secondly, if you want to be taken seriously as a "qualified authority" with all kinds of important club memberships, you should probably toot your horn elsewhere than on my Talk page - I already have my own well-informed opinion regarding your personal claims of ability and expertise. Now have a nice day. Asmodeus 18:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Asmodeus. Let me spell this out for you very simply and clearly, so that you can understand, since you didn't seem to get the gist of what I wrote above. First. I have no imminent need to be "taken seriously as a qualified authority". Which I said above, but you, of course, conveniently chose to ignore it (or are unable to grasp the meaning of the very simple English words I used). Next. It was you who raised concerns about me, based on nothing but your own misplaced pompousness and undeserved arrogance. Or maybe it's because you're bitter that I am not taken in by Langan's little "theory", and that I brought it to the attention of other people who found it similarly ridiculous, and frustrated that the Wikipedia community does not wish to be the blog of every crackpot with a piece of metatwaddle they wish to inflict upon the world; at least, not as long as the article is forcibly prevented from being edited to a neutral, balanced and sane level of content, with complexity and reverence proportional to the tawdry and lurid nature of the rags in which it was printed.

Finally, you are entitled to your "well-informed" opinions. I can assure you I have many well-informed opinions of you, your competence, your character, your intelligence, and even your sanity, but I am doing you the courtesy of not exposing you to them, since you are bound to be offended. I think it is only fair that you do the same, especially since no-one except possibly for DrL would appear to have any desire to be exposed to your puerile invective and cheap sarcasm, whether or not is targeted at them. Now have a nice day. Byrgenwulf 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil and calm down. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Request

It would be helpful if, while I'm advocating for you, you could refrain from leaving comments on other users' talk pages or Hillman's talk page expressing your frank opinion on their conduct, as it is counterproductive to our case. Thanks. --David Mestel^(Talk) 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Further request

Please stop speculating about Hillman's RL identity and otherwise verbally assualting him - it really doesn't help any. It would be helpful if you would let me conduct the negotiations on my own. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hi, David. Please note that I haven't speculated about User Hillman's RL identity, or possible concealment thereof, in the last several days (even though I question the redundant PhD claims recently posted to Hillman's Talk page). As agreed, I'm trying to give your negotiations a chance. Speaking of which, I note that Hillman is trying to predicate any future concession(s) on a reciprocal concession from me, specifically, that I stop questioning Hillman's Wikipedia identity and pointing to possible conflicts of interest which may have occurred under cover thereof. At such a time as Hillman agrees to refrain from harassing DrL and me, removes all personal information and speculation previously posted about us, and promises to scrupulously avoid possible conflicts of interest where I, DrL, and the Langans are concerned - i.e., to stay away from us, and from any Wikipedia articles about the Langans and their ideas, charitable activities, and projects - then I will be happy to lay aside my questions regarding the Hillman account and ignore Hillman's other activities on this site (even though I may continue to address the conflict-of-interest problem in more general terms, particularly as it relates to Wikipedia policy). Otherwise, I'd prefer that the negotiations remain confined to existing violations of Wikipedia policy regarding the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. Thanks, Asmodeus 14:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Holiday

I'm going on holiday from today until Saturday 26th August, so please address any inquiries to Steve Caruso in my absence. Thanks, David Mestel^(Talk) 06:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI

David left a message on my talk page that concerns you. In case my page is not on your watchlist, I am letting you know. Just FYI ... --DrL 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hillman

Hillman has indicated that he is not prepared to continue with negotiations until you have explicitly agreed to the following four conditions:

1. you will not approach admins demanding that he be blocked
2. you will not approach admins seeking to unprotect the protected talk page archive, or his protected user page,
3. you will not seek to alter his user pages,
4. you will abide by any agreement reached and agreed to by you, DrL and Hillman.

If those are acceptable to you, please indicate by posting "I agree" below. Thanks, David Mestel^(Talk) 17:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Response: Hello, David. I've been away for the last week and just read your message.

As far as I can tell at the moment, User Hillman's conditions boil down to approximately this:

"I will negotiate with Asmodeus and DrL if and only if they promise in advance that regardless of the outcome, I can do whatever I want to them without fear of resistance or retaliation."

This is unacceptable. In fact, it is insulting. (On the other hand, if this is not the intended meaning, then I request clarification.)

As you know, Wikipedia editors are required to abide by Wikipedia policy regarding the unauthorized disclosure of personal information. This is non-negotiable. No one who reserves the right to violate the core policies of Wikipedia can possibly be acting in good faith, and without good faith, negotiation is futile.

Pending the resolution of this matter, I would like to make it clear that I am running out of patience, and that should any further attacks be launched against me or DrL, negotiation will be out of the question. Thanks, Asmodeus 04:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

No, no, what he's saying is that he won't negotiate unless you agree that unless and until the negotiations break down, you will not take further action against him, and that you will abide by any agreement reached and agreed to by you and DrL. David Mestel^(Talk) 06:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, as long as it is understood that everything except further violations of Wikipedia core policy hinges on the negotiations. (Were DrL and I to agree to the above conditions 1-4 without this explicit qualification, we would simply be handing unconditional victory to User Hillman. While you might believe that this qualification was implicit and should have been taken for granted, DrL and I have learned the hard way not to take anything for granted around here, particularly when it comes to the interpretation and application of rules.) In return for this concession, we expect Hillman to add no provocative material to their/his/her user pages while the negotiations are in progress, including encouragement for the provocations of others. Please make sure that User Hillman understands and agrees to this. Asmodeus 15:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It is courteous, I think, to inform you that there is a Request for Comment open on your behaviour. You can comment, here. Byrgenwulf 17:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Attention

Hi,

The edits to which you drew my attention are intemperate, perhaps, but they do not constitute personal attacks, in my judgment, because no person or editor is named, nor is any indicated by linking. On leaving, editors will sometimes make intemperate statements; so long as these are not directed against any particular editor, they generally are allowed to stand. You may nominate the page for deletion if you wish, at MfD, but I decline to speedy delete it, as it does not appear to constitute a personal attack. Best wishes, Xoloz 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience arbitration now underway

This arbitration case might interest you. Tim Smith 03:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

On Self-Representation of the Theory

Hello, Asmodeus. Now it very well may be that your understanding of the theory in question is deeper than mine -- I don't know and won't presume to know how many times you've read the key paper on it, but it seems to me, from the very first sentence of the abstract of that paper is the model's self declaration as a meta-model enclosing a philosophy of science, rather than as a "science instance":

Inasmuch as science is observational or perceptual in nature, the goal of providing a scientific model and mechanism for the evolution of complex systems ultimately requires a supporting theory of reality of which perception itself is the model (or theory-to-universe mapping).

To my dull mind, that reads:

Science observes and perceives reality, and to that end, needs a supporting meta-structure above it that includes the notion of perception, if the scientific model is then going to map to observable reality.

Further to this, in that same abstract, the model discussed in the paper then self-represents as follows:

By the nature of its derivation, this theory, ..., can be regarded as a supertautological reality-theoretic extension of logic.

In other words (in my dull mind at least):

The theory expounded upon in the present paper is an extension to formal logic that allows for the definition of the tautologies [that is, the self-evident truths] in those submodels it encompasses and proposes to regulate.

Now, since you very well may grok it better than I have here -- to me that is clear as the nose on my face. The meta-model proposed suggests not that it is science, but that by including a notion of perceptional feedback, allows us (for some value of "us") to formally and symbolically test a proposed theory candidate against standard methods of logical symbol manipulation to see if the candidate theory is self-consistent and itself can hold in a larger, all-encompassing system.

That is, if I wished to propose a "theory of economics", I could test that theory itself to see if it is broken within its own axioms, against a higher order theory of what makes theories in general tenable.

Should I take up origami, or is this also close to your own understanding of the theory's self-declaration?

It seems to me the theory of theory in question is presenting itself as a benchmark of theories, scientific and otherwise, not as a fixed-point contained (instantiated) theory. That is -- it's presenting itself as having the necessary ingredients to know if the recipe for baking a cake is tenable, not as a cake, and not as a recipe for a cake, but as a recipe-test. (Addendum: and moreover, it contains within it mechanisms such that it can reflexivy test itself as it begins to contain more recipes, in order to avoid becoming muddied should tripe somehow locally have a better value than some better soup, such that pragmatically acceptable elements later need to be replaced with better recipes as knowledge evolves to observation. This being required of a ToE because we observe free will, and thus the meta-theory must account for telesis-shifts -- that is, goals change and thus what is "acceptable" in a theoretic system now may not be as our free will is exercised to require stricter theories in future.)

-- QTJ 16:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Further groping factored out to avoid a content-based discussion. -- QTJ

Response: Hello, QTJ. I (roughly) agree with most of what you write.

As you probably know, the distinction between science and philosophy is inherently rather complex. In fact, the two fields would be inseparable but for a modern artifical definition of "science" which is explicitly based on the scientific method, which in turn reflects a certain radical philosophical position with roots in Cartesian dualism and physicalism/materialism. Since this definition is widespread throughout the scientific community, we are justified in making the following distinction on its basis: a scientific theory is an outcome of the scientific method, i.e. an interplay of observation and deduction, while theories of math and/or philosophy are not...they are exclusively deductive (and/or logically inductive, which comes down to the same thing). As you surmise, any observational predictions that might be extracted from such a theory are deductively "testable".

Thus, it is unnecessary to split hairs over what the CTMU "predicts" about the physical world; if it makes its predictions on a purely deductive basis from axioms or first principles (as opposed to specific empirical observations), without relying on observational testing to eliminate possibilities, then it is philosophical rather than scientific. The CTMU does this by exploiting what might be called "model-theoretic" generalities of the observation process itself...not mere observations, but prerequisites of observation. You are also correct in surmising that the theory has a closed structure loosely analogous to a closed topology like that of a Klein bottle, but applying to "metalinguistic" operations like observation, description and interpretation rather than geometric displacement (which is itself treated in terms of metalinguistic operators, on grounds of theory-model isomorphism...i.e., on the grounds that a true theory of geometry is logically equivalent to its "real-world" geometric image or interpretation). This metalinguistic closure property is what makes the CTMU "supertautological".

Those who attack the CTMU without understanding its true nature do a monumental disservice to the scientific community, which needs the level of real-world insight that it alone brings to bear. If its author has not yet chosen to publish material on it in "reputable" academic journals, whatever that may mean to any particular person, then that's his right, and it is also the right of Wikipedia's readership to have access to it on the basis of its mass-media coverage alone.

By the way - technically, Wikipedia is not the place for a content-oriented discussion of this kind. So if you wouldn't mind, we should probably avoid extending this one. (Since you know the author, you may consult him if you have any further questions.) Asmodeus 18:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on the non-extension of the discussion. I was trying not so much to dissect and understand the content so much as come to an understanding about its past misclassification here within the context of some of the debate in which you have participated. My analysis above is likely full of lacunae (mea culpa!) and in any case, were this the place (which you point out it ain't), to wax in that direction wouldn't do anyone a service, because of my groping. In any case, the paper in question certainly self declares in its very first sentence as to not being classified as some have apparently attempted in the past, and I'll respectfully leave it at this. -- QTJ 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I've factored out the rest of the content-based groping I had put, out of respect for the "not the place" and as per my above comment. All best with your efforts around this place. :-) -- QTJ 18:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Further to "efforts" ... it would seem to me at least that the overall effect of such debates might be (one might hope) that editors would come to understand and embrace their own limitations of understanding on topics, and respect those self-recognized limitations. I would not, for instance, presuppose to classify with absolute fiat-like authority, such a deep and encompassing theory of theory, or even to go into the literary topics (deconstruction for example) and pass judgment as to the taxonomy they belong. It would be presumptuous of me to do so, and to declare myself an imprimatur of such things would eventually backfire, because I would eventually misclassify things. In this, I think, Wittgenstein's Seventh Proposition is of absolute importance. And if I may extrapolate from what I have seen, this itself appears to be a mission in and of itself worthy of the effort involved: that editors realize their own limitations in passing judgment outside the scope of their grasp. Again, all best. -- QTJ 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I too am astonished at the clumsy way some of Wikipedia's self-styled science experts do their business, pretending to perform editorial surgery with the taxonomic equivalent of a sausage grinder. I welcome your participation in my occasional efforts to curb their abuses - left unopposed, they'd turn this place into a stripped-bare wasteland of textbook exerpts and snide remarks in no time flat. Take it easy! Asmodeus 19:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

(Refactoring out my dated comment about running for ArbCom since I withdrew in order to spend time cleaning up some messiness I found strewn about the place. -- QTJ 21:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Hey there. Figured you might grok this. BTW -- no skin off my nose if you agree with me that this section I started on your talk page might have outlived the purpose of my clarifying my muddled brain a bit on some of the concerns. Feel free to shove it into the history bin as a refactor if you want. Cheers. -- QTJ 09:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:AUTO

I strongly suggest you read WP:AUTO which discourages the editing of subjects one is personally involved in. JoshuaZ 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, as far as I can tell SA has violated no Wiki policies. Indeed, previous arbitrations have made it quite clear that if an editor's actions make it highly likely that they are a specific individual who is involved in an article there is nothing wrong with editors pointing it out and/or taking action based on that. JoshuaZ 21:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

But the CTMU and Langan articles aren't presently at the focus of any Wikipedia discussion - the former has merely been mentioned with respect to the behavior of ScienceApologist and others during its deletion, and only to the extent that said behavior seems to bear on the RfA in which ScienceApologist is currently an involved party. In fact, the CTMU article no longer exists on Wikipedia! For that matter, I've done precious little editing on either of those two articles, let alone violated NPOV. So how does your rationalization apply here? Answer: it doesn't. So if you wouldn't mind, please take your remarks elsewhere. Asmodeus 21:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

What rationalization? You made many edits to both articles (I haven't looked at all the CTMU difs in detail yet but at a glance I'm not convinced of their NPOVness anyways), hence I'm directing you to WP:AUTO. I haven't brought the matter up at all elsewhere. Just pointing out that a) you should be aware of it and b) that SA hasn't done anythign wrong policy wise since you were editing those articles. JoshuaZ 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please tell the truth, Joshua. I've done very little editing on the Langan bio - two edits, both extremely minor, and both well-justified. Stop harassing me. Asmodeus 22:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Yes, I think you came in a bit late. Fred Bauder 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration

Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Clerk FloNight 20:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[12] made on November 20 2006 to Academic_elitism

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 16:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Hello, William. I notice that you've blocked me, and also that you are a member of WikiProject:Pseudoscience, a couple of whose members have recently been harassing me. I also note that you have not blocked user Prosfilaes, who pursued me to the page in question for the obvious purpose of harassment - although none of the pro-or-con arguments in that article is specifically referenced, he/she used referencing as a pretext for removing all and only those arguments added by me, after previously picking a fight with me regarding this very topic here. Why are you allowing this to happen? Specifically, why do you seem to be censuring one party in this disagreement while letting the other run away free? A brief review of the talk page for the article should have told you what's up, and your skewed enforcement in this case makes it look as though you are an active partisan of user Prosfilaes...or worse yet, that you are a partisan of ScienceApologist, against whom I was recently forced to request arbitration. Would you mind explaining why you've decided to block me for a perfectly justifiable series of reverts, yet overlooked Prosfilaes' glaring violations of WP:HARASS? Thanks, Asmodeus 16:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I blocked you because you broke 3RR. You also (a) failed to mark your reverts as such and (b) put in a spurious 3RR report which had only 3R on it. If P is harassing you, then you need to report that at ANI, *not* put in spurious 3RR reports. P wasn't blocked cos P didn't break 3RR. And your allegations of partiality won't help your cause William M. Connolley 17:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Asmodeus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First, I was stalked to Academic Elitism by one "Haldane Fisher". This account was recognized as bogus and duly blocked. Then User:Prosfilaes immediately moved to capitalize on the situation by following in the footsteps of "Haldane Fisher" and removing all and only my own edits to the page; look at the talk page of the article for background. Obviously, Prosfilaes stalked me to the page in order to continue the fight he had started with me here on exactly the same topic. This is a violation of WP:HARRASS. By the time William M. Connolley got around to blocking me, extensive efforts to resolve the situation had already been made (on the talk page). The block is unfair, unnecessary, and quite possibly retaliatory in nature. (Regarding what Administrator Connolley calls my "spurious 3RR report" about the three (3) reverts committed by User Prosfilaes, it was an honest mistake...I assumed that three reverts, rather than four, constituted a violation.)

Decline reason:

See discussion below. User admits to violating 3RR and states that he thought that even three reverts would have been a violating. Claims of justification are not compelling -- JoshuaZ 19:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Asmodeus, are you saying that you thought that three was too many, you then went up to four and now and you want to be unblocked ? JoshuaZ 18:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right - I maintain that since I had damned good reason to revert, I didn't really violate 3RR. Say, aren't you the administrator who came here to make spurious, that is to say unverified, accusations against me (AUTO, COI) in solidarity with serial WP:HARASS violator ScienceApologist? Why, yes indeed, I believe you are. If that's what you're up to again, may I ask that you go somewhere else and waste someone else's time? Thanks very much for your cooperation, Asmodeus 18:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, right. Apparently stepping in as an uninvolved admin to say that SA hadn't done anything wrong now constitutes harrasement? That's charming. It is however not as charming as your claim that you "really violate 3RR." You need to reread the WP:3RR; you edit warred over a content matter. That's classic 3RR and almost all editors who violate 3RR think that there case is a special exception. It isn't in those cases and it isn't in yours. Making uncivil comments will make you less not more likely to be unblocked. JoshuaZ 18:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as "edit warring over content" is concerned, that's a matter of opinion, and as you've probably already guessed, I don't particularly value yours...you're clearly biased, having falsely accused me above of violating WP:AUTO when in fact, nothing of the kind ever occurred. I don't know what other editors "think" about their personal motivations, and neither do you. And as far as civility is concerned, are you honestly under the impression that making unverified accusations like this is "civil"? Please...if you don't mind, I'd appreciate a brief respite - I don't have time for any more of your games. Asmodeus 19:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah...I was afraid you'd make that mistake. You really should have recused yourself, you know. After your false accusations against me, both on this page and here, you really can't afford to abuse your administrative authority like that. Asmodeus 19:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. Pointing out prior precedent now makes me somehow involved? Give me a break. As for your dif claiming evidence of incivility, I strongly suggest you read WP:CIVIL. Disagreeing with Asmodeus doesn't make something uncivil. Now, if you feel strongly enough about this matter I won't object for you to remove my unblock delcline above and put another one back up. However, I would be surprised if another admin decided to unblock you given the clear 3RR. I will however again caution you- repeated accusations of admin abuse and similar behavior makes you less not more likely to be unblocked. JoshuaZ 19:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you insist on claiming, counterfactually, that you never made false accusations against me (personally) as cited, please do it elsewhere than on my talk page. [To wit, if you claim that you never wrote that I "made many edits to both [the CTMU and CML] articles", which of course is sheer fabrication on your part, then I don't have the time to humor you.] On the other hand, if you want to try to prove your accusations, then feel free. Otherwise, your only reasonable, ethical option is to explicitly retract your accusations, apologize profusely, and correct your misrepresentations. I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. Asmodeus 19:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 21:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly apologize for my error in opening the case. I assure you that this was completely unintentional and accidental. As I mentioned on Thatcher's talk page, it was very late in the night and I should have probably left the case opening for the morning when these slip-ups could have been avoided. Once again I apologize for any inconvenience caused. --Srikeit 16:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clear up...

...I noticed in your statement that you listed the three users who suggested arbitration[13] - "Administrators Shell Kinney, Daniel Bryant, and Thatcher131 all recommended arbitration". Just to clear up, I'm actually not an administrator, and I apologise if you percieved me as one - it was not my intention :) Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 23:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, and happy holidays. Asmodeus 23:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I've seen this movie before

You are involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Workshop. It reminds me of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel. I think you would be wise to read it and some of its associated pages. A quote just to get you started: "Agapetos angel and several anonymous editors are suspected to be either him or associated with him." WAS 4.250 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack on ScienceApologist

is unacceptable] and is exactly the sort of thing you've been told not to do. Don't continue. JoshuaZ 16:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Response: I'm sorry, JoshuaZ, but in my judgment, that's not a "personal attack". I merely made what I regard as a factual, verifiable statement regarding ScienceApologist's contentious editorial assertions and proposed a little test to which I think he might agree. After all, ScienceApologist seems very, very concerned with credentials and qualifications, to the extent that in exactly that context, he regularly violates WP:HARASS, WP:V, WP:LIVING, and various other policies in plain view of you and other administrators. Surely, in the spirit if not the letter of WP:V, he'd be willing to help us verify his self-proclaimed "expertise"? But of course, if I'm really out of line here, then thanks for setting me straight, and have a nice day. Asmodeus 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.
• Tommysun and Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are placed on probation. They may be banned from any article or subject area which they disrupt by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. *Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

For the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 02:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Inquiry

I've noticed that you've repeatedly stated that Langan verifiably accepts evolution. Do you have a citation for this statement? JoshuaZ 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1, reference 18, Christopher Michael Langan. Editor William Dembski knows it, therefore ISCID and the Discovery Institute know it. That Langan supports evolution is no secret and never has been, at least to those who do their homework before stating their opinions. Asmodeus 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, that seems like less than an endorsement of evolution or an indication that Langan accepts evolution. " In agreeing to write this essay, I have promised to explain why I find Darwinism unconvincing. In order to keep this promise, I will be compelled to acknowledge the apparently paradoxical fact that I find it convincing as well." is not exactly a ringing endorsement or even an indication that Langan accepts evolution especially in the context of the next few sentences such as "The field of evolutionary biology is currently dominated by neo-Darwinism, a troubled marriage of convenience between post-Mendelian genetics and natural selection" JoshuaZ 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you find Langan insufficiently devoted to Everything Darwin. But his explicit acceptance of the evolutionary process, and his treatment of neo-Darwinism as the "limit" of a more general theory of evolutionary causality, is as plain as it could possibly be. So that's it. Also note that Langan's resolution of the chicken-or-egg paradox, also mentioned in Popular Science and other sources, takes evolution as a premise. There's simply no doubt that Langan is an evolutionist. Where he departs from your average Panda's Thumb devotee is in his evident belief that ID, regarded as the idea that the origin and development of life involve a generic form of design (as opposed to the magical premise that order can spontaneously arise from total randomness), is compatible with evolution, rather than irrevocably opposed to evolution (as unquestioningly assumed by the denizens of Panda's Thumb, etc.). So please, a bit more accuracy in the future. It's not nice to repeatedly thumb your nose at WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR, etc., just because you have a weighty philosophical axe to grind. Asmodeus 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan

Christopher Michael Langan should conform to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Particularly, any controversial information which is not well sourced may be removed. In addition, the article should have a sober balanced tone. It is usually best for the subject or anyone closely associated with him to avoid editing the article, but comments on the talk page are welcome. In instances where persistent negative editing keeps the article in an unbalanced state it may be best to delete the article. Last I looked it seemed OK but I am no student of the subject. Fred Bauder 15:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at it again. The only part I had some question about was the information about Langan being an advocate of intelligent design, but the nature of that advocacy seems to be explained in footnote 16. Very similar to the alternate universe of The Lathe of Heaven or The Butterfly Effect. Fred Bauder 15:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not "advocacy", but information and a willingness to explore. Langan has actually attempted to develop a perfectly neutral compromise between the two warring sides of the ID-evolution controversy, but it seems to be well over the heads of the best "science experts" at Wikipedia's disposal, and you appear to be siding with one particular side in that controversy (as Langan himself has never done). I understand Wikipedia's high level of concern with WP:COI, but in all honesty, I think you're taking it to an unjustified extreme here. In addition, I'll point out that if you find the Langan biography currently "neutral", it is entirely because DrL has removed pieces of misinformation that were added by others, spent some amount of time in plain view of the world, and had negative effects on the public perception of Langan and his work with respect to accuracy and ideological affiliation. Being aware of the evidence that actually exists, as opposed to the absurd "evidence" of FeloniousMonk et al (a mere collection of context-free links that does not come close to objectively supporting the allegations in favor of which you seem to be voting), I do not consider this open to doubt. Therefore, could you explain the procedure for locking this bio while maintaining the option to add to it, under appropriate supervision of course, as new circumstances arise? Thank you. Asmodeus 15:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article seems to be locked now. It should be re-evaluated after the arbitration is closed. I believe my votes are well supported by the evidence. It is quite possible I misunderstand Langan's position on many points, but I have only glanced at the matter superficially. It is to be expected that information about subtle matters is often inaccurate. This is complicated by the lack of published work by third parties which seriously analyse his work. Fred Bauder 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently locked, but serious threats of disruption have been issued, to be carried out at such a time as it is unlocked. [Please see the article's talk page, which includes repeated threats to (e.g.) contaminate the article with misinformation regarding past litigation on matters unrelated to Langan's life and work, as provided by the (non-notable) litigious parties themselves.] This is a powerful argument for leaving it locked, with exceptions to be made only for relevant, well-verified modifications or additions. While Langan is more than notable enough to justify the existence of a biography article at Wikipedia, neither he, nor I, nor DrL has the time to make a lifelong hobby of fending off POV-driven attacks on it, and if you insist on tying their hands, it will rapidly degenerate to an unseemly exercise in personal defamation (as it has sometimes done in the past). Hence, my request. It is simply not fair to allow POV-driven misinformation to be added to the article by ignorant, ideologically committed "science editors" at Wikipedia, and with all due allowance for your hectic administrative schedule (and attendant inability to look very closely at the facts regarding Langan's work), I very much appreciate your attention and responsibility in this important regard. Thank you. Asmodeus 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Edits to my Talk page

I should like to make it entirely clear that you are not entitled to any sort of action replay, re-run or second guessing of ArbCom cases. Your typing material into my Talk page, fraught with accusations of bias, matters involving other editors, and claims that I'm ignorant of fact and policy, does not constitute anything that I have to put up with. There is no customary right here of a daily chance to pin down Arbitrators on their votes, and badmouth them. Charles Matthews 15:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again, it was not my intention to "badmouth" anybody (and I do know what I intended). I'm finished with my attempts to reason with you on your talk page, and again, would merely ask that you maintain a fair and open mind regarding the case in question. Thank you. Asmodeus 16:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)